Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to join in acknowledging Senator Kirk's contribution to this amendment. The reason I have offered it is very simply to send a message and have the effect that no corrupt elected official, no official convicted of a felony in connection with his official duties as a Member of Congress should receive one dime of taxpayer money. And that breach of law should have consequences.

I join in asking for a voice vote.

Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from New York, and my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Senator Brown, for their superb leadership on this issue, and I am very pleased to strongly support the underlying bill.

Amendment No. 1498 to Amendment No. 1470

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1498.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, essentially this amendment, very simply and directly, assures that Members of Congress who may be prosecuted and convicted of the offenses specified in the amendment also should see their pensions revoked, along with potentially other crimes that they may have committed.

The purpose essentially is to assure the credibility of Congress by revoking pensions of corrupt Members of Congress, not only those who may be convicted under this pending bill--insider trading--but also a variety of other public corruption offenses. In fact, the amendment adds 22 new public corruption offenses to existing law that merit the cancellation or revoking of congressional pensions.

I have worked with Senator Kirk, who, unfortunately, could not be with us today. He and his staff have been integral. It is a bipartisan- proposed statute that is similar to one I worked to enact in Connecticut when I was the attorney general there.

The guiding principle is absolutely crystal clear, consistent with the basic measure we are considering: not one dime of taxpayer money should go to corrupt elected officials.

Over the past 50 years, Members of Congress have been convicted of 16 separate felonies. So the need for this measure is considerable, even if it is a small minority of the Members of Congress. In fact, right now, approximately $800,000 a year is paid to Members of Congress who have been convicted of these kinds of felonies.

So I wish to particularly thank Senator Kirk and quote him since he could not be here today. He said, earlier this year, of this legislation:

American taxpayers should not be on the hook for the

pension benefits of convicted felons. Expanding current law

to include additional public corruption felonies will block

pension benefits for Members who fail to honor their pledge

to defend the Constitution and uphold the laws of the United

States. Once you have violated the public trust in that way,

I think that the taxpayers should not be supporting your

retirement.

In short, very simply, a breach of law by an elected official is a serious offense that should have consequences. Taxpayers should not pay for the retirement benefits of elected officials convicted of a felony--Members of Congress, anyone else--especially as the United States faces the soaring deficits that it does now and the crippling debt that grows even higher.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am proud to follow the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington who has spoken so powerfully on this issue, which is especially appropriate at this time because we do mark the 2-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's momentous and misguided decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision strikes at the core of democratic ideals and principles, not just because it opens the floodgates for money that can drown out the voices of millions of ordinary Americans in the political process, but it also demonstrates the results of judicial activism at its worst. In that case, the Court, by a 5-to-4 margin, held that corporations have a first amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money in the service of political candidates and that those rights cannot be abridged by placing limits on their

independent spending for political purposes.

This decision not only expanded the ability of wealthy individuals and large corporations to flood out the voices of millions of ordinary Americans, it also reversed nearly a century of existing law and struck down the validly approved--by this Congress--Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, approved in 2002. The purpose of that act was to limit the corrosive influence of money on our political process that has been discussed and denounced by Members of this body again and again and again and by the President of the United States as recently as a couple nights ago.

This decision, in my view, was wrong as a matter of law as well as policy. It enables unlimited anonymous money to be contributed in support of or opposition to candidates. It allows the wealthy and powerful to have a disproportionate voice in the most important and fundamental aspect of our democracy--a free and fair election that counts everyone's vote equally.

The shock waves of that decision in Citizens United are reverberating now with increasing impact throughout our political system. We can see them every day, literally, in the ads that appear on TV in major markets in the primary States and throughout the country that could and would--might as well be in the voices of the candidates themselves. Outside groups spent four times as much money in the 2010 midterms as in the 2006 midterms--nearly $300 million. Nearly half of the money spent in the 2010 elections was spent by just 10 groups. Outside spending per race tilted in favor of the winning candidate in 60 of the 75 contests last year where power changed hands. This impact is visible and tangible, undeniable in our political process. It is right before us, as visible as the desks and people in this Chamber. That impact can be expected to grow dramatically in 2013, as spending in the Presidential years is typically much higher than in the midterm elections.

According to opensecrets.org, which tracks political spending, as of today, 296 groups organized as super PACs have already reported spending nearly $41 million on the upcoming election. These super PACs are banned from explicitly coordinating with the candidate they support, but they are operated and controlled by supporters, many of them former staff members. Their collaboration and confederacy are no less impactful because of that rule barring explicit coordination.

We must act to limit the destructive effects of Citizens United before it permanently alters the nature of our political system, undermining it forever and eviscerating the fundamental rights and freedoms that are protected by our Constitution.

I am a strong proponent of legislative proposals to force corporations and individuals to disclose their enormous donations and expenditures to the public--a number of them have been mentioned by my colleagues--and I support them. The Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United naively argued that voters could readily learn the identity of companies behind these corporate-funded political advertisements. But the fact is otherwise.

Nearly half of the $300 million spent by outside groups in 2006 came from groups that did not disclose their funding source. We must pass disclosure legislation immediately to at least allow sunshine to rein in the worst excesses of this new system, to give ordinary Americans the knowledge they need so that disclosure protects their freedom.

But I also believe we need to go further, and that is why I am a cosponsor of the constitutional amendment that would reverse this decision. The amendment, S.J. Res. 29, would reiterate what we all believed the law to be before Citizens United. That resolution clarifies, and the amendment would do so, that Congress does indeed have the power ``to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections and that States have the authority with regard to State elections to do the same.''

I know that amending the Constitution is not easy, and supporting a proposed amendment is not something I do lightly. But, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has clearly demonstrated that it will permit unchecked corporate power over elections, and the task is then for Congress and the States and the people to restrain such spending and thereby rein in the Supreme Court.

Many have seen Citizens United as an expression of the U.S. Supreme Court's judicial activism in favor of well-funded and well-lawyered corporations, often at the expense of vulnerable Americans, and there is support for that view of the Supreme Court trend in decisions.

In AT&T v. Concepcion, it expanded the ability of companies to force consumers into secretive binding arbitration agreements. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, it restricted the ability of similarly situated persons, including female employees who faced discrimination in the workplace, to ban together and seek redress against a powerful company.

In PLIVA v. Mensing, a case involving a woman who sustained injuries from a drug company's failure to properly disclose the risk of a generic drug, the Court sided with the drug companies, holding that a generic drug company is not liable under State law for failing to notify the FDA or the consumer about newly discovered risks of the drug.

In Sorrell v. IMF Health, the Court overturned a Vermont law intended to prevent improper and invasive practices of drug companies tracking doctors' prescriptions to patients. Just 2 weeks ago, in CompuCredit v. Greenberg, the Court halted a class action lawsuit by consumers who signed up for a credit card marketed to individuals with poor credit histories. Each of those decisions and others has been interpreted as part of a pattern that led the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing a few months ago entitled: ``Barriers to Justice and Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings will Affect Corporate Behavior.''

But more important than that perception and the appearance of that favoritism in judicial activism is the activism itself, the potential overreaching that undermines the faith and confidence of people in the Court. Citizens United exemplifies judicial activism at its worst. People want limits on the corrosive and corrupting influence of money. They want restraints on the power of corporations and wealthy individuals to fund----

I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

In closing, people speak through their legislature. The judiciary struck down a measure through which the people spoke to place those limits on the ability of corporations to shape results, and the judiciary now should be overturned through a constitutional amendment that restores the Democratic voice of the people as a whole.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak despite the expiration of the majority's time.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleagues, many of whom served in the last Congress. I thank them for extending the payroll tax cut at that time, providing a payroll tax cut from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. I thank them on behalf of myself. I was not a Member of this body at that time. I thank them on behalf of the American people. They are due that thanks and appreciation for that vision and courage in extending that measure in cutting the

payroll tax so as to lessen the recession. We have only to listen to the virtually unanimous opinion of economists to the effect that we saved the Nation, this body saved the Nation from a deeper recession.

Now I ask my colleagues to undertake a similar mission, to accomplish the same goal, to once again save the Nation from a deeper recession. The recovery of this Nation's economy has been fragile and slow. Many economists--notably, Mark Zandi, who has been quoted by my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania--say that a failure to extend it will mean a new recession. We are talking about average Americans, ordinary people who are hurting and struggling. They are hurting economically and struggling to find jobs. They are struggling to stay in their homes and keep their families together at a time of year when joy and satisfaction ought to be the quality of their lives. They deserve this measure of peace of mind, as my colleague from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, has referred to it. But all of us--the entire Nation--deserve the economic security, which is a matter of national security.

Rescuing this country from continuing debt and deficit means returning to full employment. Twenty-five percent of our deficit can be eliminated by going back to lower rates of unemployment.

Economic recovery is a means to countering and curtailing what the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called a national crisis and a security threat.

Economic recovery depends on consumer demand. As I go around the State of Connecticut, businesspeople tell me what they need most is consumer demand. Their confidence and certainty about the future of the economy, their willingness to invest, depends on consumer demand. That kind of factor, that need is what ought to motivate all of my colleagues--every Member of this body--to vote for this measure, not only extending that payroll tax cut but also reducing it by 3.1 percent.

We are talking about anywhere from $1,400 to $1,500 or more in the pockets of people around the country, people around the State of Connecticut. The average middle-class family in Connecticut earns $83,797 per year and would save $1,676 in taxes under the current payroll tax cut. Let me give you those numbers again. The average middle-class family in Connecticut earns $83,797 per year--back in their pockets $1,676 in taxes under the current payroll tax cut as proposed in this measure.

We are talking here about a compromise. Our side of the aisle has modified this bill to make it about one-third smaller in size and cost. This legislation will no longer give employers a tax break. We have pulled back on the magnitude of this measure. But it will still affect 160 million workers who will receive nearly $1,500 in additional take- home pay.

This bill will be paid for by measures that were coming from the deficit reduction proposals contained in a number of the supercommittee's ideas. It is paid for by fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie and by a proposal suggested by my colleague, the Republican leader. The cost-saving reform suggested by him would make millionaires ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps.

This legislation also levies a surcharge, a temporary 10-year surcharge, on the highest earners in American society, who can well afford it when their own interests would be extraordinarily well served by the consumer demand and economic recovery that would be generated.

I know many of my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, are concerned about the effect on Social Security, and so am I. The Social Security trust fund is a trust, a sacred trust that we are honor bound to protect. And I would not vote for this measure if I thought it created a threat, a real threat, to the viability of that fund. But I believe the assurance we have received from the chief actuary of that fund--and it is contained in a letter to Secretary Geithner and to Jacob Lew, it was printed in the Congressional Record yesterday by Senator Casey, and it assures that the effect would be negligible. In fact, it says the trust funds would be ``unaffected.'' It uses that word, and I will quote directly from the letter.

We estimate that the projected level of the OASI and DI

Trust Funds would be unaffected by enactment of this

provision.

That letter comes from the chief actuary of the trust fund, and I am prepared to rely on that assurance and to say that I believe this kind of measure is the responsible thing to do at this point in our economic history to make sure our recovery is continuing.

The effects of failing to do so: The economists differ whether the rate of growth will suffer by .5 percent, which is Mark Zandi; or .66 percent, Goldman Sachs; or 1 percent, RBC Capital Markets; or 1.5 percent, Michael Pond. Whatever the specific percentage, we know it will be grave and serious in the damage to our economy if we fail to extend and enlarge the tax cut.

So I urge my colleagues to heed the voices they are hearing back home, as I am hearing from ordinary citizens, middle-class families.

We are talking about a middle-class family measure that will benefit people like Marilyn in Bloomfield, who writes to me:

I believe these cuts need to remain in effect in order to

avoid deepening the recession we are in. I urge you to

support the President's jobs plan and pass as much of it as

you can in upcoming legislative sessions, for the benefit of

struggling families.

She writes and she says ``to urge you to vote in favor of extending the payroll tax cut for workers beyond Dec 31. . . . ''

Listen to people like Ginny. They are in every one of our States. Ginny, who is from Southport, CT, writes:

I know you will do the right thing when the payroll tax cut

and increasing the taxes of only the 2nd million and above of

wealthy Americans comes up for a vote. I have faith in you.

With the economy still struggling to recover and millions

of Americans struggling to put food on the table this holiday

season, we cannot afford to raise taxes on working Americans.

Those voices from middle-class families are reaching this body every day. We have heard them before. This body heeded them last year in enacting this tax cut. I thank every Member who voted for it. It was a bipartisan vote. I hope this one will be as well. I will be proud to join Members from both sides of the aisle, and I hope this measure will have support--overwhelming support--from both sides of the aisle in showing the American people we can come together, bridge our differences, and compromise.

This measure reflects a compromise on both sides. I hope it will be passed later in the day.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am honored to join and associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague from Rhode Island, who has expressed forcefully and eloquently the reasons that I believe Richard Cordray should be confirmed in his nomination as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This country faces a continuing financial crisis. We see it on the job lines, in the streets, and in our communities. That crisis can be traced to the same abuses that this new agency was created by the Congress to fight.

The laws are good laws. They are designed to protect consumers from those abuses and problems that led to this financial crisis. But the laws are dead letter, or meaningless, unless they are enforced vigorously and rigorously, unless consumers are protected not just in word but in deed. That is the reason we should confirm Richard Cordray as the Director of the CFPB.

The people in this agency are doing good work. They have the authority now to supervise some of the biggest banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, but they need a Director to oversee the work of nonbank financial institutions, such as independent payday lenders, nonbank mortgage lenders, nonbank mortgage servicers, debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, and private student lenders.

Lest anyone think these are abstract or potential problems, they have only to look to their neighbors and friends

who are struggling to stay in their homes, seeking to pay their debts, and facing every day the continuing abuses in these areas. The bad actors may be among a minority of actors in this area, but they cannot be counted unless Richard Cordray is confirmed. I know from my experience that consumer protection laws are meaningless to ordinary Americans, as they are to citizens of Connecticut, unless there is vigorous enforcement of these laws.

Richard Cordray will bring to this job a unique set of qualifications. He has been involved at the local and State levels in working closely with community banks and credit unions, as well as other financial institutions, as a State and county treasurer. He understands the important role they play in small towns and communities. He knows how to work with institutions and the businesspeople who run them. He is realistic and sensible. He has common sense. He has had a positive experience--hands on--working at the local and State level.

I have worked with him personally as an attorney general, worked collaboratively with him--indeed, helping to start the investigation of the mortgage service abuses that have led to a nationwide inquiry and, hopefully, will lead to a nationwide solution. I know him to be a practical and sensible person who knows how to listen. Richard Cordray knows how to listen to people who are affected by the rulings he may make, the policies he may implement, and the people whom he may hire. Indeed, his nomination was praised by a former U.S. Senator and current attorney general, Mike DeWine, a Republican who defeated him in 2010.

Republicans in this body have made this issue a partisan one. It should not be. There is nothing partisan about debt collectors or mortgage services or others who may abuse the trust of consumers. There is nothing partisan about people who become victims of the abusive practices that continue, which we need the CFPB to counter. There is nothing partisan--or should be nothing partisan about this individual, Rich Cordray, who has dedicated his life to protecting ordinary men and women against the financial abuses the CFPB is designed to fight.

Blocking his nomination is, very simply, a way to stop the CFPB from ending abuse. It may be articulated in a variety of ways, using words such as ``accountability,'' ``rulemaking,'' ``structure,'' or ``authority'' as terms that are at issue. But the fact is that his nomination cries out for confirmation simply to implement the important laws that this body has passed, laws that remain dead letter as long as they are not enforced.

The men and women who are working in this agency now, under the leadership of Raj Date, are doing the best they can. They are making a difference. They are protecting, for example, our veterans. Holly Petraeus, who is head of the division in the agency designed to protect our veterans, is doing great work in that area. She deserves our support; she needs and merits our support. She and others in that agency need and deserve the support of this Congress and this body in confirming Rich Cordray.

I have worked with Rich Cordray. I know him as a man, as a public official, as a nominee. We will be losing a uniquely qualified person for this job if we fail to do the right thing and protect consumers from the continuing abuses of this industry.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow the senior Senator from Connecticut--rising now as the junior Senator from Connecticut--for the same purpose: to urge my colleagues to approve Christopher Droney as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I also would like to join in thanking the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for bringing this nomination to the floor.

Incidentally, I wish to join in Senator Leahy's very eloquent remarks on the Violence Against Women Act, which I too will support after it is introduced. The reauthorization is very much needed, particularly at this point in our history, and I thank him for taking the leadership on this issue as on so many.

I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut for championing this nomination, and I thank our colleague, the majority leader, Harry Reid, who is extraordinarily insightful and sensitive to the importance of judicial nominations since he is a lawyer himself--and a very skilled and able one--and has supported this nomination.

Today is a very meaningful one for me personally, almost a magical and very momentous moment to stand in this historic and hallowed place and participate in the approval of a man whom I have known for more than 30 years to a position of the utmost importance, a position of trust and responsibility as important as any in this land, and a person of supremely well-recognized qualifications and experience for this position. Indeed, his life has been almost a preparation for this chapter in his career.

I am privileged and honored to have been a colleague and friend and professional ally of his for more than 30 years. I have known him since his graduation from law school in 1979. We were in litigation together in private practice. When I was U.S. attorney for Connecticut and later attorney general, we worked together. Indeed, when he was U.S. attorney, following my service, we were partners in law enforcement in a number of cases. I had the direct and immediate experience of seeing many of his prosecutions, his intensity of commitment not just to a successful investigation and prosecution but his commitment to doing justice, which is the highest calling of a prosecutor--indeed, of any lawyer.

When he became a judge, I had the honor of appearing before him, presenting witnesses, arguing cases, and to have firsthand experience again with the quality of his professional work.

I have to admit my office as attorney general did not win every case. We lost some. But whether we won or lost, we emerged from those experiences with an unqualified respect for the quality of his fact- finding, his scholarship and, again, his commitment to doing justice.

He has demonstrated as a district court judge the qualities I know he will bring to the court of appeals: extraordinary scholarship and intellect, an adherence to precedent, a careful analysis of the law, a thoughtfulness and responsiveness in the questions he asks, and an insight into the factual record as well as the truthfulness of witnesses. He has what I consider to be the most important qualification for any judge, which is a capacity for growth, for learning and listening. He is, above all, a good listener, a sensitive and responsive listener. He has indeed the qualities that are exemplified by the man he will be replacing--Guido Calabresi--a judge known to the senior Senator from Connecticut as well as myself; indeed, a teacher of mine when I was at Yale Law School and I believe very possibly of the senior Senator as well--a person of exquisite sensitivity and sensibility and common sense. Those are the qualities of Christopher Droney: sensibility, sensitivity and common sense, and he shares with Guido Calabresi the grace of writing and sense of history that are so important to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

I am proud to join in supporting this nomination. I wish him well, and I ask my colleagues to join in approving him when the vote is taken. Thank you.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Levin, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, for the immensely important work they have done on the bill we are considering, S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. It is a massively important bill, a big bill, and I want to focus on one part of it--a seemingly small section but a vitally important provision of the bill--that enables our Department of Defense to more effectively counter improvised explosive devices, known as IEDs, which have been a major source of attacks against United States and coalition forces in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan and threaten not only our troops there but all around the world as well as our coalition partners.

I thank particularly one of my colleagues, Senator Bob Casey, who has been a champion of these efforts against the IEDs or roadside bombs for some time. He has been a relentless and tireless leader in this effort and has included me and others, and I am proud to join him in seeking more effective measures.

This summer saw the highest volume of IED incidents ever recorded in Operation Enduring Freedom, approximately 1,800 a month. That is a staggering and alarming number, and they continue. These devices are deadly and devastating, killing and maiming our troops and causing loss of limbs, traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress, and other horrific injuries that are the signature wounds of the ongoing wars. In fact, roadside bombs cause 60 percent of all casualties in Afghanistan. They are the hidden killers in this war.

I speak with the urgency of an elected official whose State citizens are at risk and who are returning with these signature wounds of war and whose lives and limbs can be preserved if we act effectively. I speak as a citizen who has visited the hospitals and the troops who have come back. We have all visited our constituents and their families, their loved ones, their friends and neighbors who have been victims of these terrible weapons of destruction.

Most IEDs in Afghanistan, in fact more than 80 percent, are made with materials originating in Pakistan. There is no magic bullet or panacea to solving this problem or addressing the challenge. It will take a comprehensive fight. Both the provisions contained in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill with regard to Pakistan and the vital force protection equipment in the Defense authorization bill are essential to shutting down the sources of bomb-making materials in Pakistan. They include steps to interdict bomb-making materials at the border and to provide the armor and force protection against the IED threat.

Roadside bombs in Afghanistan are typically made with calcium ammonium nitrate, a very common fertilizer. It is a seemingly innocent product but capable of detonation when processed and packaged in these roadside bombs and then placed in areas where our troops go. This fertilizer from Pakistan accounts for more than 80 percent of the IEDs in Afghanistan. Every day bags of this fertilizer are smuggled to Afghanistan from Pakistan, sometimes hidden in the convoys of goods that cross the open 1,500-mile border. The fertilizer pellets are boiled down and the material is put in a package or container with an explosive detonator that is often linked to a simple trigger system-- something such as a tripwire buried in the sand awaiting the tire of a passing vehicle or the foot of an American soldier on patrol. At this moment, thousands of our soldiers and Marines have been injured. Thousands of these bombs are buried in Afghanistan soil and, sadly, many more will be planted in the coming weeks and months.

Again, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, has been a leader in the Senate and, indeed, led a bipartisan group of Senators, including

myself, in writing to the Secretary of State to request a greater diplomatic effort by our government to encourage Pakistan to stem the flow of bomb-making materials into Afghanistan. Then, in August, we went on an official trip, a CODEL, to take the message straight to the Government of Pakistan. We met with the most senior leaders of Pakistan and we urged stronger action against the misuse of everyday materials by terrorist groups in making the bombs that kill and maim our troops in Afghanistan. We took this message to officials of Pakistan at the highest level, and they responded with a plan that is supposedly being implemented.

The fact is, stronger measures are needed. We need a crackdown and a shutdown on the bomb-making materials, the fertilizer, and the calcium ammonium nitrate that is transported and smuggled across the border so that it can be made into bombs and maim and kill troops from Connecticut and from across the country--troops who are innocent victims--and the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan themselves who have become victims.

We saw firsthand how our troops seek to protect themselves from these IEDs. In fact, at a sand-swept compound in Helmand Province in Afghanistan our congressional delegation saw the most common types of protective practices and devices, including how our soldiers and marines wear body armor, lie face down in the dirt and drag a 10-foot pole with a hook on the end on the ground to look for the telltale signs of an IED. Other measures range from the use of dogs that sniff out bombs to huge armor vehicles and more advanced technology. But even with the most effective and advanced means of detection and disarming bombs, body armor is still essential to protecting our troops.

Pakistan's plan to address the IED smuggling supply chain, which is a threat to its own people as well as our soldiers and marines, has yet to prove effective. The plan addresses border security, regulation of fertilizer materials, and promoting public awareness of the threat posed by these IEDs. But we cannot rely on Pakistan's goodwill to ensure this important work is given the priority it requires.

There can be no ambiguity, no doubt, no uncertainty in our relationship with Pakistan, and that is why I support the even stronger measures Senator Casey has championed in a process he has suggested that would withhold any assistance if verification cannot be accomplished. The Pakistanis need to prove with action, not mere plans or conferences, that they are stemming and stopping the flow of fertilizer. They need to prove more than good will or good intentions but effective action to stem and stop the flow of all of the bomb- making materials across the border.

We also must support efforts by the Department of Defense to procure and deploy body armor and equipment, such as this bill does, that protects all our troops in harm's way. We are all familiar with the force protection development such as enhanced ceramic plates and redesigning vehicles with V-shaped hulls to deflect blast impact. These advances, make no mistake, came at great expense in terms of blood and treasure to our Nation. We learned how to properly equip our troops in some respects for these measures. But even as the end of Operation Enduring Freedom is now in sight, the requirement to develop even better protection continues and it must be relentless and tireless.

We cannot abandon our efforts. We simply cannot abandon this fight to protect our troops in the field. The lessons learned will serve to honor our commitment to ensure that the brave men and women who protect our freedom and protect our safety and security have the best protection we can provide them.

Enhanced ballistic armor, including underwear protection--or blast boxers--are essential to combatting the threat of roadside bombs. When an IED detonates against dismounted troops, it blasts sand and fragments that shred skin, literally tears apart the skin of our troops. Covering their legs and groin area with flexible armor can prevent amputation of a limb or worse.

I have asked and been informed about delivery of this equipment. To date, 165,000 of the tier 1 sets of blast protection have been delivered into theater. The Marine Corps received 15,000 sets of tier 2-level protection, delivered 4 days ahead of schedule. By the middle of next month, the Army will also receive its complete requirement of tier 2-level sets.

This armor was adapted from one of our allies, British forces, and the Army has now established domestic production of the equipment. I am hopeful that additional types of protection will also be processed and produced and sent and I hope it will be expeditiously.

When I learned of this lifesaving equipment and the challenges involved in delivery, I wrote to the Department of Defense urging swift delivery of the body armor. I was joined by colleagues Senators Casey, Bennet, and Whitehouse. I am hopeful this program will be an example of our body armor procurement system working effectively. I am hopeful it will set an example and provide a model for this body armor being provided expeditiously, as it is needed. I look forward to our passing the Defense authorization bill, which continues these efforts to supply body armor and equipment needed for troops in Afghanistan.

This bill provides also for the equipment needed to interdict IEDs, from the small backpacks carried by our troops to UAVs to giant Buffalo vehicles. Interdiction also requires the right specialized equipment to detect materials to make those IEDs as they are smuggled across the porous Afghan-Pakistan border. This effort also requires training and awareness of both our military personnel and our allies in this fight. As of September 2011, the Afghan border police had 20,852 personnel. This growth is encouraging.

But the border police have problems with endemic corruption, and they are effective only to the extent that our special forces augment this effort. Our special forces, our special operators, should be encouraged and enabled to continue this effort. Interdiction is an integral part to larger efforts to understand battles based in this region. Force alone can't solve this problem. We need better intelligence and the right detection equipment, combined with the efforts of our special forces. It must be truly a comprehensive effort, as the Defense authorization bill clearly recognizes. We need to show all who live on both sides of this border that the cost of supplying the ingredients of these bombs that kill and maim our troops is too high for them, just as it is too high for us to tolerate.

Let me again thank chairman Senator Levin and ranking member Senator McCain for their recognition of this problem. Our Nation has spent more than $\1/2\ trillion in support of the war in Afghanistan. We have sustained more than 2,800 coalition casualties. An Afghanistan that is stable and self-sufficient certainly is our goal, and it depends upon the tactical success of these efforts.

IEDs remain the weapon of choice of our enemy. Should we not learn to successfully counter the threat of IEDs, we will see this asymmetrical threat repeated on the battlefield, wherever our troops are deployed around the world.

Given the enormity of this challenge, I urge my colleagues to remain committed to this goal, remain true to this strategy, and counter these IEDs. We must authorize both our foreign operations expenses and this bill and I thank my colleagues for their truly bipartisan support of these efforts.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for organizing this colloquy, and the Senator from Montana has been a tireless advocate of opportunity for all the people of the United States and particularly his State. So I am honored to follow my colleague from Montana in this discussion.

Claiborne Pell, whose name is on the grant, is an example of how an individual can make a difference in this institution. His contributions have left a legacy not only for himself and the State of Rhode Island but also for the entire country in advancing the cause of higher education and putting it on the map in the American understanding of how critically important it is and how it is evermore important today for the United States to compete in the global economy. It is important for individuals to compete within the United States. It is important for middle-class people to continue to have viable, healthy families. In fact, the Pell grant is important to the economic health and even the viability of our middle class. The failure to fund it and support it will endanger educational opportunities for middle-class Americans across the country.

What we know about the modern economy is that more and more, a high school education alone means less and less. High school is vitally important but, economically, it is not enough. That is reflected in an overwhelming--almost an avalanche--of statistics and studies. The most recent issue last Friday by Georgetown University Center on Education shows clearly and dramatically that Americans who have only a high school education are less likely to have a good income and a good economic status.

Workers who had a high school diploma alone, in 1973, were qualified for 72 percent of jobs--much more than two-thirds. Today, people who have only a high school diploma are qualified for only 44 percent of the jobs available. In 2018, that number will drop to 37 percent. That set of numbers is more than just a statistic, it is human lives and families and income--dollars in people's pockets they can spend in our economy. It affects particularly women who more and more shoulder the largest burden of changes in our educational requirements and have been hit the hardest in the unemployment crisis we face. In our advancing economy, employers need highly skilled individuals. More and more, what I hear as I go around the State of Connecticut is there are jobs available, but there aren't people with the skills to fill them. When we talk about a Pell grant and college degrees, we are not talking about only a 4-year diploma, we are talking about an associate's degree that enables somebody to run a computer on an assembly line or do welding or the other kinds of practical skills that enable people to fill those jobs, enable America to compete, and enable employers to compete successfully.

In 2018, only one-third of the jobs available to noncollege-educated workers will provide a living wage. That is a statistic that ought to be a wake-up call to the Congress and to Washington. I think it is reflected not just in the overall picture but in the individual human stories that both my colleagues expressed in their remarks and that I hear from people who not only have benefitted from Pell grants but who hope to benefit from them, including educators who believe they are vital to the future of American education.

I wish to cite a few this morning and quote first from a letter I received from Norma Esquivel, who lives in Greenwich, CT, and who said to me in her letter:

I recently received news regarding the possible elimination

of the Pell Grant. As a recipient of the Pell Grant, the mere

thought of losing such an essential feature of my financial

aid package is devastating. . . . I was brought up in a

Latino household where the lack of money was often a catalyst

for stress and hopelessness. Neither of my parents could

afford to attend college. My father worked as a janitor and

is currently retired due to his debilitating Parkinson's

disease while my mother is a housewife.

She goes on to talk about how her parents gave her the hope and aspiration to attend college and how she is now doing it at Sarah Lawrence because of the Pell grant.

Gena Glickman, who is the president of Manchester Community College, writes to me about the students whom she meets and she sees every day who benefit from these programs. She says:

Pell grants not only help low-income and first-generation

students to access postsecondary education and training, they

enable them to complete degrees and certificates.

Senator Whitehouse has given us this statistic that is astonishing and alarming: $1 trillion of debt that our students now bear--larger than the amount Americans owe on their credit cards, I believe, and threatening not only their futures but all of our economic futures and the viability of our economy.

I would like to ask my colleague from Rhode Island whether and how much funding is projected to be necessary for the continued viability of this program and for America and Americans to compete in the global economy?

I thank the Senator. If the Senator will yield?

I agree wholeheartedly with everything the Senator has just said so eloquently about the importance and the partnership of the Pell grants, and I would like to again ask a question to my colleague from Rhode Island, whom I thank, by the way, for organizing this colloquy. His leadership on this issue has been so instrumental, carrying on the great legacy and tradition of Senator Pell.

Isn't it a fact, I ask Senator Whitehouse, that throughout its history, the Pell Grant Program has enjoyed strong bipartisan support; there has been nothing partisan or Republican or Democratic about advancing American higher education in this way?

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the life and legacy of Casey Ribicoff, an inspiration, role model and friend to me and so many others.

Casey Ribicoff was a living legend. She and Abe shared a love that was heartfelt and moving, and obvious to all who knew them. She brought laughter and elegance to every friendship, most especially to her partnership with Abe. Together they traveled the world and country, making new friendships and visiting old ones, all the while creating enough memories to last a lifetime.

Having served on the Abe Ribicoff Senate staff, I can attest to their extraordinary partnership in public service, her deep caring for the people of Connecticut, and her commitment to social justice. She regarded the Senate as a platform for advocacy and hard work on behalf of Connecticut and the public interest. She and Abe were truly a team.

Casey had an impressive energy and strength. She was constantly involved in good causes, leading to her appointment by Jimmy Carter to the board of the Kennedy Center, a position she proudly held for 20 years. A founder of the AIDS Care Center at the New York Presbyterian Hospital, Casey always found new ways to give back and help the community.

As a personal friend, which she was to Cynthia and me, she was endlessly loyal and generous, and she leaves a legacy of good work that will be remembered for decades to come. Casey was kind, generous and loving. She will live on in the friendships and family that she cherished. She will be sorely missed but never forgotten.

Mr. President, today I wish to commend Robert and Margaret Patricelli, of Simsbury, CT, for their immense generosity and vision in establishing an institute that will promote and support important public service activities.

Public policy and service have played a central role in the Patricelli's careers and lives. Graduating from Wesleyan in 1961 and Harvard Law in 1965, Bob was selected as one of 15 people for the first White House Fellows Program. His participation helped shape him as someone who understands the value of public policy and government service. Both he and Margaret are always looking for ways to give back and inspire others.

Their passion for giving back and helping others is what moved them to start the Robert and Margaret Patricelli Family Foundation to bring a tangible reality to programs and projects that serve the greater good. What Bob and Margaret have done through their family's foundation is inspiring and moving--and will continue to serve the country, and the world, for generations to come. Their philanthropic and service activities have touched countless lives across the State, from the arts to science, hospitals to schools, and programs assisting low-income neighborhoods.

In May of this year, the foundation contributed substantially to Wesleyan University, establishing the Patricelli Center for Social Entrepreneurship. This center will support students seeking to establish programs and organizations, providing workshops, speakers and networking opportunities for students. It will help encourage and embolden students who are focused on becoming social entrepreneurs, as well as award grants to undergraduate students engaged in specific projects. The foundation's most recent contribution to Wesleyan is one more example of great caring and commitment that lead me to recognize Bob and Margaret for all that they have done for our State and country.

A role model and inspiration to all who value public service, I commend and thank Bob and Margaret Patricelli for their legacy of great work for Connecticut and the country.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his remarks, and certainly for me, at least, he owes no apology for having spoken his mind. I always welcome the opportunity to listen, and I have done so, and am honored to follow him.

Amendment No. 927

Today I speak as we approach Veterans Day, and I believe this Veterans Day may be particularly significant for our Nation in part because we have the opportunity in this Chamber to honor some very special veterans, the Montford Point marines, who graced us with their presence yesterday as we celebrated the 236th birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps. They were present then. They were present in 1942, when they stepped forward to serve and fight for this Nation. They are African Americans who fought and served for this Nation at a time when they anticipated no recognition and certainly no honor, and we have the opportunity between now and Veterans Day to approve a measure that would grant them the Congressional Gold Medal, which they richly deserve and they have earned through their service. They are the epitome of the Marines--they happen to be marines--and of the service men and women whom we honor on this Veterans Day. They happen to be men of the ``greatest generation,'' the World War II generation. They are among the greatest of that generation.

I had the great honor to be with them yesterday, in fact to be the honored guest in the Russell Building when the commandant and I had the privilege to honor them. Their presence yesterday reminds us of our continuing obligation to all veterans and of the need to make the well- being of our veterans a priority, as I have sought to do.

Indeed, my first bill, entitled Honoring All Veterans, has as its objective to leave no veteran behind. It offers a comprehensive set of measures to assure that we keep faith with every veteran, every veteran who needs a job, every veteran who needs better health care or counseling or training or education. These commitments we have made as a nation to all of our veterans and now we have the opportunity to keep those promises and keep faith with them, as we have a solemn obligation to do every day, every year, not just Veterans Day.

I want to thank Senator Harkin of Iowa for cosponsoring the legislation I have offered, and also to thank Senator Tester, Chairman Murray of the Veterans Committee, and Ranking Member Burr of that committee for their work to address these challenges recognized by the Honoring All Veterans Act and this comprehensive measure, VOW to Hire Heroes amendment. Truly, we should vow to hire our heroes, and we should do so not just in words but in deed, not just in rhetoric but in action, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the important tax credit provision in the Tester veterans jobs amendment for businesses that hire veterans.

Helping veterans is a challenge that will require the engagement of everyone in the community, from Congress to veterans service organizations and business leaders across the board, across the country, across the State of Connecticut.

At a recent veterans hiring forum I hosted in Connecticut, I heard firsthand the challenges in veterans recruitment, and what innovative companies such as United Reynolds were doing to hire skilled and talented veterans in this symposium in that setting. They provided an example of what we can and should do.

I see my cosponsorship of this amendment as honoring a commitment to push for legislation to provide incentives to firms to hire unemployed veterans, and to make it easier for companies to connect with veterans so they can fill some of the jobs that are now available. There are jobs available, and we should give our veterans the skills they need, skills they may have acquired in part during their service that need to be honed and expanded, and we have that opportunity. I want to thank all of those Senators for championing this measure.

My own legislation, Honoring All Veterans Act, allows a veteran to take the Transition Assistance Program, known as TAP, an interagency workshop coordinated by the Departments of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs for up to 1 year after separation at any military facility. The bill before us makes participation in the program mandatory. Low participation rates in this program are especially concerning, as junior members tend to be those most in need of the services provided by TAP, and the benefits available through the VA for many skills such as simple skills, writing resumes or interviewing have never been needed or learned before. Not having such skills, not knowing how to interview or write a resume puts them at a severe disadvantage when they are attempting to enter and succeed in the workplace after they exchange their military uniform for civilian clothes.

Section 222 of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act authorizes an assessment of

the equivalence between skills developed in military occupational specialties and qualifications required for civilian employment with the private sector.

I like to say that when you call out the National Guard, you call out the best in America. When you call out the Connecticut National Guard, you call out truly the very best in America. The military recruits the most talented men and women in America to serve, and then invests heavily in those skills and their professional development. Yet when they enter the civilian world, very often those skills are simply unrecognized by laws requiring separate training or licensure, and we ought to do more to recognize the expertise and experience the military gives to these brave men and women. That is why I authored a similar provision in the Honoring All Veterans Act to ensure that civilian employers and educational institutions recognize a veteran's military training.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America reported--and I am quoting--61 percent of employers do not believe they have a complete understanding of the qualifications ex-servicemembers offer. And, recently separated servicemembers with college degrees earn on average almost $10,000 less than their nonveteran counterparts.

I applaud my colleagues for including section 222 in the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. It is a vital step toward helping employers find the employees they need and toward closing the income gap that exists now.

The legislation before us also expands education and training opportunities for older veterans by providing 100,000 unemployed veterans of past eras and wars with up to 1 year of additional GI benefits to go toward education and training programs at community colleges and technical schools. I am proud of the bipartisan compromise to extend this period for 1 year. I hoped it would be even further broadened and extended, but this measure is a great first start toward providing skills for job opportunities that now exist and can be filled by men and women coming out of our military to civilian life.

Let me say, to come back to the Montford Point marines, I want to thank Senator Pat Roberts who was with me yesterday at the 236th birthday celebration, and most especially I thank the Senator from North Carolina, Kay Hagan, who is with us today, for her leadership on this issue. Truly, we can make this Veterans Day special for all of us in this Nation if we approve this Congressional Gold Medal to men who stepped forward to serve and fight when this Nation failed to appreciate their service and valor. Now we have the opportunity to make good on our commitments to them as veterans--to all of our veterans--in this measure. I am proud to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle in nearing now the number that is necessary to approve that measure, and I hope we can reach that kind of bipartisan consensus on that legislation, but also on the broader VOW to Hire Heroes Act, that can lead us back to the kind of bipartisan approach on so many issues that we need to emulate in this body.

I thank my colleagues for supporting this measure, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker, for very graciously beginning this discussion. I want to join in thanking the distinguished Senator from Delaware for all of his hard work and his very successful and insightful discussion this morning. It is a problem that concerns all of us very deeply and immediately, and his leadership has been an enormous contribution to the Nation on this issue.

The GAIN Act

I am pleased to be here today with Senator Corker to discuss a problem that is spreading across the country. It is a public health threat to our troops, our children, our frail, and our elderly involving the spread of mutant germs, so-called superbugs, that are resistant, sometimes even immune to existing antibiotics.

I have been very proud of the work Senator Corker and I have done together. He has joined me, and we have been joined by Senators Bennet, Hatch, Casey, Alexander, Coons, and Roberts in the Senate, and by Representatives Gingrey and DeGette in the House, along with a very bipartisan group of respected Members there on an issue that is truly bipartisan. I wish to yield to Senator Corker and then continue my remarks on an issue that ought to concern us very closely and immediately.

Reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that these infections are not only prevalent but spreading across the country. I have a detailed set of charts that demonstrate this problem. He and I have developed what I think is a solution the Congress can consider in order to provide incentives for development of new antibiotics, new medicine, that can help the Nation prevent the spread of these kinds of diseases.

So with that, I yield for the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

Again, my thanks to my very distinguished colleague from Tennessee whose leadership and contribution to this bill has been instrumental from the very start. I welcome him and have been thankful for his partnership on this issue.

As my colleague from Tennessee said so well, these antibiotic- resistant drugs are a spreading scourge. Reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that MRSA infections are responsible for more than 17,000 deaths in the United States every year--more than AIDS and many other diseases that are regarded as public health threats. All 50 States have seen rates of antibiotic- resistant E. coli infections double in less than 10 years.

A lesser known bug, Acintobacter, a bacteria that affects increasing numbers of our troops serving in Iraq, has infected more than 700 of our servicemembers since 2003. The numbers are continuing to rise. Those numbers are alarming. I have some charts I will show in just a moment that will be even more graphic. But to put a human face on this problem, Jamel Sawyer, a former college football player from Norwalk, CT, knows all too well the crippling impact of these antibiotic- resistant infections.

He was in school in Boston. He suffered from severe back pain and a rising temperature. He went to the hospital and was told he was suffering from a kind of antibiotic-resistant staph infection which surmounted multiple rounds of antibiotic treatment. He was left paralyzed and unable to walk. He was paralyzed from the waist down and remains very severely handicapped as a result. Right now he is fighting to gain back his ability to walk and function normally.

We are in an arms race with superbugs. We are in a fight with antibiotic-resistant mutating germs that are a spreading, persistent, and pernicious problem all around the country. The resistance is fueled by careless use of antibiotics, the overuse of certain kinds of antibiotics, or failure to use them properly, as when they are not used for the full round when they should be and thereby lead to greater resistance on the part of these germs.

Failure to use these antibiotics properly and failure to exercise good stewardship is important, but it is not the only cause. We need to stay ahead of these germs in an arms race to develop new antibiotics and provide incentives for those antibiotics.

The problems we are encountering are shown by these charts, beginning first in the year 2000 with antibiotic-resistant E. coli. As this chart makes clear, nowhere--in no State in the United States--was there a rate above 10 percent. That accounts for the light yellow pattern here.

In 2009, the situation was very different. In States across the country--major States, including New York and the entire East--the rate was above 35 percent. In many parts of the Midwest, including the Presiding Officer's State, the rate was above 25 percent. E. coli resistance to treatment by this commonly used antibiotic presents a threat particularly to our children and our elderly.

The next chart I wish to show concerns Acintobacter. This bacteria has afflicted particularly our troops coming back from Iraq. It is, in fact, nicknamed ``Iraqtobacter'' by many military doctors, and it has literally jumped enormously in the number of cases.

This was the case in the year 2000, showing almost everywhere rates below 5 percent. The present incidence is very different, alarmingly so. In some States it is above 50 percent, including, I believe, New Mexico, and in many parts of the East above 30 to 40 percent.

This Acintobacter incidence is something that is a major national security problem insofar as 700 troops have been infected with Acintobacter, and as Robert Jackson, the director of Military Families United said so eloquently about this disease:

The worst part is that many of our men and women in uniform

survive the war effort only to return and die of this

infection in the continental United States. Thus Military

Families United strongly supports the GAIN Act, which

would ensure that American companies have the motivation

to combat the most modern, multi-drug resistant diseases.

I brought these charts simply to show how the spread of these superbug infections has affected the entire United States. There are other diseases like MRSA and VRSA. They are a set of acronyms that are comparable to, in effect, a modern plague.

Fully one-third of all deaths from H1N1 Swine Flu, for example, in 2009 were actually caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, 100,000 deaths and 360,000 hospitalizations in the United States resulted from antibiotic- resistant infections, at a cost of $26 billion to our health system annually.

What is the reason for the rise and spread of these diseases? Well, the main reason is we do not have new antibiotics to treat and cure them. The reason for that dearth of new antibiotics goes to the fundamentals of modern economics involving the drug industry. Antibiotics are prescribed and used for a course of 2 weeks, if they work. There are blockbuster drugs and miracle drugs that are used for the treatment of chronic diseases and, therefore, are used often for lifetimes. The revenues from those blockbuster drugs are themselves blockbuster products and profits.

The problem with antibiotics is the lack of economic incentive to develop them in the modern economics of the pharmaceutical industry. The GAIN Act would remedy that problem. It would incentivize the development and research required to implement and discover these new drugs. It would extend the data exclusivity rights for 5 years. It would speed and expedite consideration of these drugs by the FDA. It would provide a fast track, essentially, and enable prompt review. It would moderate and eliminate the kinds of regulatory hurdles which is so important in providing not only incentives but also a track to consumers so they would have the availability of these drugs.

I personally would welcome other ideas if there are any for strengthening the incentives for development of these antibiotics that are so important to treat and cure the antibiotic-resistant germs that cause these problems. I hope we will continue to have the kind of bipartisan momentum in favor of these new developments.

I close by saying we are all talking about jobs on the floor of the Senate these days. This proposal is also, in a way, a jobs-related program. It would enable small innovators and small businesses--one is, for example, Rib-X Pharmaceuticals in New Haven, a 50-person company trying to develop new drugs through innovation. The kind of boost and incentive this bill will provide is very important for the innovators of America who are out there trying to provide cures for Acintobacter, MRSA, E. coli--all of them superbugs--providing a solution to this problem that I think is very much urgent and in the interests of our Nation.

This measure is a first step. I hope we can come together to enact it. I urge the Senate to join me in doing so.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank and commend my distinguished colleague from Michigan for those very eloquent remarks on behalf of an act that I too rise to support. I thank the Presiding Officer for his very eloquent and persuasive comments earlier in this debate on the Rebuild America Jobs Act and the need for this Nation to focus on the increasing trend in inequality and a very troubling absence of focus on the compelling obligation we have to rebuild America at this point in our history, to rebuild our roads and bridges and ports and airports and schools.

The Rebuild America Jobs Act would provide $50 billion very directly to rebuilding our roads and bridges and railroads and airports, and that is a pressing need for America, but equally as pressing and important are the people hurting and struggling all across the country. People are struggling to find jobs, to stay in their homes, to keep their families together, and those struggles ought to be heard and seen in this Chamber, on this floor, at this moment in our history. They are Americans who played by the rules and who are now out of work, out of support, and soon, sadly, out of hope.

For much of our time recently, we have been mired in the politics of deficit and debt, and that is not to say those subjects are unimportant. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I believe in cutting our debt, restraining spending, and cutting the deficit. But deficit cutting cannot be used as an excuse to gut the social safety net we have labored hard to create over 75 years. It cannot be used to ignore the needs of people struggling to find work. It cannot be used as a reason to neglect our critical infrastructure in this country and the sad and serious defects we now find in it.

One powerful and proven means to cut the deficit and the debt is to create jobs and enable economic recovery. What matters most to the American people now is jobs, work, employment, going back to work, back to good jobs, earning a living for the sake of not only their economic well-being but their respect and self-worth, their dignity. More is at stake here than simply a paycheck. It is the social fabric of our communities, our country, our families. That is why it ought to be a priority. Right now, investing in infrastructure in those roads and bridges and ports and airports is one of the most immediate job creators available.

The Congressional Budget Office has found that returning to full employment would reduce the deficit by 25 percent. That is way more than the politically charged and severely damaging cuts offered by many of my colleagues across the aisle. Thankfully, we have a plan to put us on the path to full employment, and it is called the Rebuild America Jobs Act. This bill would put America back to work immediately by rebuilding our ailing infrastructure.

There is no question about the need. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently rated America's infrastructure and they gave us a D. According to the nonpartisan organization Transportation For America, Fairfield County in my home State of Connecticut has the fourth highest number of motorists using structurally deficient bridges among all the metropolitan areas nationwide. That is an indictment not of Connecticut but of our Nation, and so is the fact that over 9 percent of Connecticut's bridges are considered structurally deficient. Nationwide, in fact, the numbers are even worse. One in four of our Nation's bridges is either structurally deficient or obsolete. No one wants another tragedy such as the one we experienced in Connecticut. It is called the Mianus River Bridge collapse. It killed three people. It paralyzed the roadways in and around the bridge for months.

It cost millions of dollars. It led to litigation that spanned years. The bridge's collapse almost 30 years ago prompted a major infrastructure effort in Connecticut focusing on repair and reconstruction to make our bridges and roads more safe and secure. We need not await the kinds of tragedies we saw 30 years ago in Connecticut and more recently in other States involving bridge collapses and other tragedies that show the deficiencies and unacceptable defects in these roads and bridges.

The need is clear. At a time when civil engineers across the country are calling for vast improvements in our national infrastructure, the measure before this body would accomplish exactly that goal. It would provide aid for States to be spent at their discretion and flexibility as to the projects but not as to the purpose. The purpose would be roads, bridges, airports, railroads.

This bill would invest $50 billion in upgrading and repairing 150,000 miles of road, laying or maintaining 4,000 miles of train tracks, and restoring 150 miles of runways at our Nation's airports. It would also provide seed money--and this purpose is important--for a national infrastructure bank that will attract private sector capital to fund a broad range of nationally significant projects, going beyond the ones that would be immediately supported by the $50 billion in this measure. That national infrastructure bank would be capitalized at $10 billion, but it would attract money from private investors to do far more than would be enabled by the initial seed money.

This is a bipartisan measure, long supported by Senators Kerry and Hutchison. I am proud to have joined them as a cosponsor, and I thank them for their leadership. I thank Members on the House side, including my colleague, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, for supporting this measure over the years.

A national infrastructure bank would leverage private capital and public capital to fund a broad range of nationally significant infrastructure projects all around the country--in Connecticut and elsewhere. These funds would provide an immediate boost for our economy. It is estimated, in fact, that for every $1 spent on these roads, bridges, and other infrastructure projects, our gross domestic product would be increased by about $1.59--for every $1, an increase of $1.59 in gross domestic product. We are talking about investment. We are talking about investment in America's future, in Connecticut's present as well as its future, because people in Connecticut would go back to work, back to jobs, back to livelihoods that give them dignity and self-respect.

With so many people out of work and a dire need for that kind of investment, common sense says we ought to pass this bill, we ought to do it now, without delay, and we ought to do it on a bipartisan basis. There is nothing Republican or Democratic about investment in roads or bridges or airports or railroads to make them safer, more secure, more efficient.

I ask my colleagues, regardless of party, to stand with us and millions of Americans who are out of work, to come together and find a way to pass the Rebuild America Jobs Act. Let's pass this bill now. Let's do it together, without any more delay. People are continuing to struggle and seek work, and this bill is the right thing for America. It is the right thing for Connecticut. Let's do it now.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This disease affects people everywhere of all walks of life, taking the lives of approximately 40,000 women in our country each year. In Connecticut, over 3,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year.

The epidemic incidence of breast cancer reminds us of the need for vigilance and vigor in fighting it. I applaud the various advocacy and fundraising organizations that have fought on behalf of the millions of individuals affected by breast cancer. These organizations have been instrumental in raising awareness of breast cancer throughout the health community, public, and Congress. Their work in promoting vital prevention activities and critical funding within government agencies for breast cancer has saved millions of lives, and I thank them for all they have done in the fight against breast cancer.

It is important to remember this month, and always, how critical preventive care is in the fight against breast cancer. I strongly encourage individuals to speak with their doctors about breast cancer to determine what steps they should take to protect themselves. Early detection can significantly lower the risk of death from breast cancer, and I hope women will be reminded this month to seek the preventive care they may need.

While progress has been made on this issue, we must continue to fight against breast cancer. I know my colleagues and I can agree that this this fight is a national priority, and I look forward to working with them on this issue in the coming years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Alabama that the Senate can no longer deal with serious issues relating to economic and national security as if we were doing business as usual.

I have slightly different views--in some instances, radically different views--but I hope, on the issue I will discuss, we can come together on a bipartisan basis in support of the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, which I am cosponsoring. I hope for a bipartisan support because this bill should be about as far from a partisan issue as can be.

I hope we can all agree that what America needs, at this moment in our history, is policies that put America back to work and help to protect and create jobs. We need to put Connecticut back to work and every State in our Union, with policies that favor not just our national security and make us safer and more secure but also invest in our workforce for the future. There is no better place to start than with teachers and first responders.

Funding these professional areas is much more than an immediate need; it is a commonsense solution and a national priority in promoting safe and secure communities and a highly educated workforce.

We all know the numbers. Tens of thousands of jobs--300,000 jobs, to be more precise, in our schools have been lost due to budget cuts in the last few years. In Connecticut alone, 3,600 jobs have been lost in our schools.

Those numbers are not just abstract, speculative statistics; each of them attests to an individual whose potential creativity in the classroom and possible contribution to our young people has been lost. It attests to the loss of individualized attention to students at a critical point in their lives, when they need that kind of care. Every one of them means that an educator--probably another educator--is stretched further, burdened more in the capacity to provide a positive learning environment for our kids.

The teachers that would be supported by this bill are not numbers, not statistics; they are vital to our most precious resource, our children. This bill is not about only their fate, it is about our children. It is about the quality of their learning, and it is about the quality of our future workforce in this Nation.

When manufacturers tell us, as we go home, they need people with the skills to match jobs that exist now or will be created in the future, this measure will help to provide them with the workforce they need and deserve to make things in America and to make sure America is competitive in the world economy. This measure meets our most urgent priorities--our children, our competitiveness in the world, and our security and safety in our communities.

We all know that fiscal challenges have forced our towns and cities to make cuts to the bone, cuts to programs that are fundamental and essential to our schools and also to our first responders. This bill is, in a sense, an emergency response--a first response--to those needs, because if we fail to meet this challenge, the lives of our children will be changed forever. The lives of children in Connecticut, affected by those 3,600 laid-off teachers, will be diminished and degraded forever by the loss of classes and tutoring that will be ended.

Our first responders need this bill as much as our teachers, and not just our first responders, but the people they serve. Every day we urge our children to follow their example, their integrity, their commitment, their service. Yet as budgets have been cut, we have been all too willing to cut the first responders, who should be the last to be subject to budget cuts. This approach not only weakens our economy, it weakens the safety of our neighborhoods and our communities. This bill is just common sense. It is about putting first responders back on their routes, back in their emergency vehicles, and back in their jobs where they belong.

The numbers are not sufficient to tell the whole story, but those numbers are staggering. This bill will invest $30 billion to support State and local jobs which otherwise would be lost. These efforts to retrain, rehire, and recruit

good people for these jobs in Connecticut and around the country are absolutely essential. Connecticut had a budget shortfall of $2.9 billion as a result of this fiscal crisis. We have been forced to slash funding for programs, and the 3,600 teaching jobs lost in Connecticut will take their toll in the form of a slowed recovery and an extended downturn.

The Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act will provide Connecticut with an additional $336 million to support 3,800 positions that are essential to our children and the safety of our communities. This money will give a boost to the State's economy and improve education. And we know--it is undeniable--that we need these positions in Connecticut and we need them in the country. America needs to get back to work, and we know that teachers and first responders are the right place to begin.

Let me close by saying, as I go around my State, what people tell me--and they are not politicians; some of them could be not less interested in politics--they are concerned that classes are canceled, that teams are uncoached, that music and arts programs are ending, and that their students are untutored. They want action. They want decisions from this body. We have an obligation to meet those needs and to provide this response for teachers and first responders, and I urge that we do so on a bipartisan basis in an effort that is fully funded.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.